This explains the disagreement: paying taxes in no way gives you a right to complain (in my opinion, of course). Paying taxes but not voting or getting involved is the equivalent of taking no part in the playtest, then buying the books sight unseen and complaining that WotC didn't give you what you wanted and stole your money.

Naw. Taxes are taken before they are spent and the right to complain, either at the polls or through other means, about how those taxes are later spent, is always a right of those being taxed (some of whom don't even have the right to vote).

But then you've also created a false equivalency. Buying a game sight unseen isn't the danger. The danger for WotC is that folks won't like the early design decisions then not buy into the game at all. The burden of creating a game that appeals to a wider audience than the last edition is one WotC has put on themselves. The burden of drawing feedback that helps them realize that end is also on them. Getting caught in an echo chamber of group think that leads to an edition that doesn't lead them to that goal is also a danger.

I'm not sure what this means. I've recently playedx a game using MapTools and don't see that any system wouldn't "play well" on it.

It means the players I bumped in to on Maptools wanted to play 4e, and I had no other players- so I played 4e on Maptools. I've played 3.xe on Maptools also, 4e seems much suited to a grid- surely we can agree on that?

Tourney and convention play doesn't include house rules and a lot of people think the game should work fine out of the box without needing rewrites.

Getchya, but remember in Europe (as far as I know) we don't get much of this, I've never been to a tourney, never been to a game shop that's had D&D sessions etc. For many many reasons- like the only places that do that kind of thing are way away from me, and I have a family, job etc. None of those considerations are automatic, sorry.

I get playing the game out of the box but re-writes, that's a little much, everybody gets an AP every encounter and the monsters do more damage as per MM3- there, that's the rewrites done for our 4e game. Actually 3.xe had many more house rules but that was an organic thing- as discussed in any number of story hours etc here, people just grow new rules.

Some are making the point that the only "lapsed" players are those that don't play D&D at all, reqardless of edition, so calling those who don't play 4E lapsed players isn't accurate. It's a good point.

OKay, agreed. But whatever the group is called, or whoever these players are- the people that don't fill in the surveys, or whose opinions are not being duly given enough weight. How do you find them- surely WOTC can try to cast its net as wide as possible, but if they're not interested in identifying themselves or else identifying the areas that need fixing for them to no longer be 'lapsed', or 'MIA', or whatever then... Well, that don't work.

Doesn't seem to be the case if one considers PF to be 3.75, and one considers that it seems to be running neck and neck with 4E, and then one considers all of the 3.XE and previous ediiton players still out there. This seems to be one of the main reasons WotC has moved on from 4E to building a 5E.

Yeah, again okay, but I thought the complaint is that the new 5e is beginning to look like 4e, and the 4e 'dislikers' are concerned about this- smaller pool etc. Well obviously not concerned enough- I get it of course, everything you say. But again how do WOTC do this, they put the polls up (for what they're worth) people feedback- it's a numbers game.

Some people (lets say a majority- if it helps) are with Pathfinder (or other things now), well some of them have a go at the polls and some of them are happy where they are... Should WOTC take in to account the feelings of those that responded and sent feedback, or else the presumed responses of those that didn't. Or else what do they do- phone up Paizo and ask if they could get a half page spread in the next Adventure Path asking what do we have to do to get you back?

Great as to PF having the numbers, the gaming material they produce is way better than WOTCs stuff, from my POV I couldn't go back to high level gaming with a 3.x edition- I simply don't have the time or inclination. But that's by the by.

A default game with modularity, though the concrete things they are saying seem to lean in the direction of the current edition with only a bit of a nod thus far toward previous edition play. It might be that they are going to have even fewer and fewer previous edition players giving them feedback which then leads to further design decisions along the same lines, etc. I can see why you, as someone who is definitely buying in (the production values seem guaranteed given WotC budgets), might wind up getting an edition where fewer people play than ever, especially if only a portion of the current player base buys in and WotC doesn't draw much in the way of previous edition players and players who never played D&D. It would mean a reduced player pool and even getting online games going might become problematic. We'll see.

Yeah but the hobby seems to have split already, the evidence points to the WOTC slice of cake has already split into 2 (or more parts)- Pathfinder, old skool Osric, C&C or whatever etc. You can't put it back in the box- I guess they'd like to- the one edition to rule them all etc. But they were always going to say that, umm they're selling stuff- and I guess if enough people shouted loud enough then that'd be the thing that they'd be doing... I guess. But as you say Pathfinder is 3.75, some people have made the leap- WOTC is dead to them (or whatever).

Which just leads us with a consultion process, which is still six months (at least) from over, and subject to change- if lots of people wanted change- or things didn't work I'd like to think that WOTC would listen to that. It'd be great if everyone that ever played D&D (or any other RPG) would get involved, but the real world is WOTC have already lost a lot of good will (the understatement of the century), and plenty of people seem unconcerned- except to point out 5e is just... edition x with added whatever.

I'll do the polls, when I bump in to them- I'll encourage fellow players of any edition to also do so... I guess we need to shout it from the rooftops, but if they don't want to get involved, or else are feeling under-represented, I don't know- shout-louder, protest Wizards, create a Youtube anti-grappling rules protest song, be creative.

It means the players I bumped in to on Maptools wanted to play 4e, and I had no other players- so I played 4e on Maptools. I've played 3.xe on Maptools also, 4e seems much suited to a grid- surely we can agree on that?

I was only asking about the "plays well" part but obviously plenty of people who play other things than 4E use MapTools. I'm not sure why you couldn't run into any of them. As to the grid, I think you have the situation backwards. Any era D&D works great on a grid if you want to use a grid. 4E is more known for practically requiring a grid and miniatures. Your phrasing might be throwing me off, so if that is what you mean to be saying then my apologies for misunderstanding.

Originally Posted by Goonalan

.Getchya, but remember in Europe (as far as I know) we don't get much of this, I've never been to a tourney, never been to a game shop that's had D&D sessions etc. For many many reasons- like the only places that do that kind of thing are way away from me, and I have a family, job etc. None of those considerations are automatic, sorry.

I get playing the game out of the box but re-writes, that's a little much, everybody gets an AP every encounter and the monsters do more damage as per MM3- there, that's the rewrites done for our 4e game. Actually 3.xe had many more house rules but that was an organic thing- as discussed in any number of story hours etc here, people just grow new rules.

Oh, let's not go there. I'm not getting into a "3E started it!" edition war argument though it's interesting for someone to throw out a "3E did it first" meme after they were the one discussed the problem they had with 4E. I'm just going to stay out of that.

All I'm talking about here is the simple desire to buy a 5E that is ready to run as is and that allows for people to find players who are also running it as is. It's required for organized play, it's very much needed for convention and gameday play, and it's certainly easier for pickup games and when seeking new groups. Can you personally find a handful of players who will enjoy the same rules changes you make? Sure, that's not the point.

Originally Posted by Goonalan

OKay, agreed. But whatever the group is called, or whoever these players are- the people that don't fill in the surveys, or whose opinions are not being duly given enough weight. How do you find them- surely WOTC can try to cast its net as wide as possible, but if they're not interested in identifying themselves or else identifying the areas that need fixing for them to no longer be 'lapsed', or 'MIA', or whatever then... Well, that don't work.

It's above my pay grade to figure out how WotC is supposed to get more feedback from previous edition players. If the staff they have can't figure it out, it's WotC's job to hire people who can. What they can do is work with the feedback they have and give it enough weight in the design process, if they truly feel they wish to appeal to the audience whence it came. If I have most people telling me they like red and a handful telling me they like blue, then I find a shade of purple to show them. I don't just show them red while whispering the word blue over and over. You not only won't attract more people who like blue, you'll lose the blue fans you have too. Furthermore, you eventually won't sell as much red as you hope because you've already got a red being sold and plenty of people who have it won't feel they need a new red.

Originally Posted by Goonalan

Yeah, again okay, but I thought the complaint is that the new 5e is beginning to look like 4e, and the 4e 'dislikers' are concerned about this- smaller pool etc. Well obviously not concerned enough- I get it of course, everything you say. But again how do WOTC do this, they put the polls up (for what they're worth) people feedback- it's a numbers game.

Some people (lets say a majority- if it helps) are with Pathfinder (or other things now), well some of them have a go at the polls and some of them are happy where they are... Should WOTC take in to account the feelings of those that responded and sent feedback, or else the presumed responses of those that didn't. Or else what do they do- phone up Paizo and ask if they could get a half page spread in the next Adventure Path asking what do we have to do to get you back?

I'm not sure why you keep coming back to that even after discussing the real point. None of that matters and what feedback WotC decides is worth incorporating is only important in regard to what audience WotC is trying to capture. Again, WotC said they want players from all editions. That's the bottomline and they are the ones who set it.

This isn't a "people who aren't giving feedback are complaining" problem. It's a "if WotC isn't getting feedback from people who aren't playing the current edition then they are unlikely to be doing enough to attract that feedback" problem. If you feel the answer is to then design the game based mostly off the feedback from people playing the current edition that's fine too. But you have to understand that isn't going to get WotC any closer to that bottomline they personally set, and likely will leave them far short of it. If they make a revised version of the current edition as the next edition, they won't bring in any former edition players and won't even carry over all of the current player base. This likely leads to an edition with an even shorter shelf life than the current edition.

So, you see, for WotC and those of us who want to see a successful new edition, this isn't about telling people if they don't give feedback they're just out of luck. That's doesn't put the ball in the back of the net. What we actually seem to be seeing here is a fundamental problem for WotC that they need to overcome. If they can't get much feedback from people not playing the current edition at this stage when it virtualy costs nothing across a medium that is renown for people voicing their opinions when given a free chance to do so, what can they be doing wrong? What is it about the way they are discussing the game, or maybe more so about what they are saying versus what they are actually doing, that is causing former editions fans to not even bother turning up to give much of their opinion? These seem like the questions WotC needs to answer, and quickly, if they don't want to spend the next year designing a game that doesn't attract the audience they need to make it a success.

Originally Posted by Goonalan

Yeah but the hobby seems to have split already, the evidence points to the WOTC slice of cake has already split into 2 (or more parts)- Pathfinder, old skool Osric, C&C or whatever etc. You can't put it back in the box- I guess they'd like to- the one edition to rule them all etc. But they were always going to say that, umm they're selling stuff- and I guess if enough people shouted loud enough then that'd be the thing that they'd be doing... I guess. But as you say Pathfinder is 3.75, some people have made the leap- WOTC is dead to them (or whatever).

Which just leads us with a consultion process, which is still six months (at least) from over, and subject to change- if lots of people wanted change- or things didn't work I'd like to think that WOTC would listen to that. It'd be great if everyone that ever played D&D (or any other RPG) would get involved, but the real world is WOTC have already lost a lot of good will (the understatement of the century), and plenty of people seem unconcerned- except to point out 5e is just... edition x with added whatever.

You're much more pessimistic than I am. I still see time enough to make the course corrections to see them to their goal of a unifying edition. I just don't see the steps they are taking as being in keeping with that goal. I take it by your stance (if they don't give feedback then this is what they get) that you actually recognize what direction this is going too. Maybe that is what the designers are beginning to feel too.

Originally Posted by Goonalan

I'll do the polls, when I bump in to them- I'll encourage fellow players of any edition to also do so... I guess we need to shout it from the rooftops, but if they don't want to get involved, or else are feeling under-represented, I don't know- shout-louder, protest Wizards, create a Youtube anti-grappling rules protest song, be creative.

I think that ball is in WotC;s court at this stage. I don't think that people are unaware of the new edition or that they can give feedback. I think that WotC is either not doing enough to draw them in or doing something that is keeping them away. I think they better figure it out quickly too.